New Zealand would benefit more than most countries from a concluded Trans Pacific Partnership deal, former Labour trade minister Phil Goff told the Herald last night.

“We have the least barriers and therefore we have the least we have to give away,” he said. “Other countries have to give away much more.

“While there are all sorts of problems involved in this negotiation, you have to look at the wider picture and the wider picture is that each country will benefit from a successful conclusion to it but New Zealand will benefit more than most.”

It’s great to have Phil Goff say this, but once again Labour is the yeah, nah party.

On union demands they say yeah to the unions and then tell employers nah, don’t worry.

On oil Shane Jones says yeah all for it, and Moana Mackey says Labour is against off shore drilling.

On TPP Phil Goff says it will be beneficial for NZ, while other MPs such as Twyford organise protests against it.

This is Labour standing for nothing, and trying to be all things to all people.

Mr Goff made his comments just before Trade Ministers from the 12 countries negotiating the TPP ended four days of intense talks in Singapore in a bid to resolve the toughest issues.

New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser is thought to have played a central role in the talks, having been a professional trade negotiator and diplomat before entering politics.

Groser is excellent in these forums.

Mr Goff said opponents of the TPP were seeing the talks through their particular lens “and they are highlighting worst-case scenarios” and he was not criticising them.

“It’s unlikely we will get to a worst- case scenario and if it was a worst- case scenario, it is unlikely that we would agree to it.”

Exactly. I don’t like a lot of the stuff the US is proposing – but it is only a proposal. The leaked documents have shown that in fact the NZ Government is doing a great job in resisting any provisions that are bad for NZ.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 11th, 2013 at 10:00 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Having read Mr. Goff’s comments and those of his associates, it occurred to me that perhaps there is more to this than meet the eye, a question prompted by his somewhat unusual statement:

“We have the least barriers and therefore we have the least we have to give away,”

This therefore begs the question:

Is it possible that Goff’s support is actually more in the nature of ‘solidarity’ with his socialist Democrat mates in the White House; that (as a socialist) he has a ‘vested interest’ in ensuring that there is a successful of this whole matter, and that his support (and the TPP) is part of the greater ‘One World Government’ intent which is being actively pursued by the Socialist International?

In a few words: ‘Of course he’d say that’ (that he supports the efforts etc.)

Given the ideologies of the left, such a response as he has made would seem to be totally in keeping with such an intent.

He’s not criticising his Labour colleagues. He’s just saying the exact same words as people who are.

The need to finalise a policy position for the election will bring the internal divisions within Labour (moderates like Goff and Jones versus idealists like Mackey and Twyford) to a head. They can’t stay “yeah, nah” forever, they will have to actually agree on a position. I imagine this will involve some quite heated internal debates – here’s hoping some of those spill out in public.

We have the least barriers and therefore we have the least we have to give away

I agree with this line of thinking in relation to expanding free trade agreements – NZ having chosen to liberalise it’s trading a great deal is well positioned to participate in expanded free trade.

It’s just irrelevant with regards to the TPPP which is not a free trade agreement and if Groser is honest and correct about NZ standing strong against what is not in our interest then NZ will never sign it.

I am however sceptical, I suspect that NZ negotiators interests and ambitions are not wholly aligned with NZ’s.

[Fentex]: I suspect that NZ negotiators interests and ambitions are not wholly aligned with NZ’s’.
[Komata]: I’m intrigued; would you care to elaborate?

For the same reasons I said I thought Groser had a conflict of interest when he ran for head of the WTO while representing NZ in trade negotiations – winning that office requires pleasing people representing NZ requires displeasing.

Politically ambitious people have often have ambitions for higher office, establishing legacies and memorials to themselves and any number of objectives that are more easily achieved by pleasing the powerful and influential than representing the interests of the small and unimportant.

In international trade negotiations NZ is the small and unimportant player and people of ambition can be tempted to see benefits that don’t exist for New Zealand in negotiations that please the powerful who may grant favours and access to bigger and greater futures.

It doesn’t require venal intentions for the worm of positive reinforcement to convince one that what is good for some is also good for all.